[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140812055626.GJ9918@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2014 07:56:26 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, eranian@...gle.com,
Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] perf, x86: Use extended offcore mask on Haswell
On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 05:11:30PM -0700, Andi Kleen wrote:
> From: Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>
>
> HSW-EP has a larger offcore mask than the client Haswell CPUs.
> It is the same mask as on Sandy/IvyBridge-EP. All of
> Haswell was using the client mask, so some bits were missing.
>
> On the client parts some bits were also missing compared
> to Sandy/IvyBridge, in particular the bits to match on a L4
> cache hit.
>
> The Haswell core in both client and server incarnations
> accepts the same bits (but some are nops), so we can use
> the same mask.
>
> So use the snbep extended mask, which is a superset of the
> client and the server, for all of Haswell.
>
> This allows specifying a number of extra offcore events, like
> for example for HSW-EP.
>
> % perf stat -e cpu/event=0xb7,umask=0x1,offcore_rsp=0x3fffc00100,name=offcore_response_pf_l3_rfo_l3_miss_any_response/ true
>
> which were <not supported> before.
>
> v2: Post correct patch.
> Signed-off-by: Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>
I seem to have this patch; so that means this is a repost right?
Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped
Powered by blists - more mailing lists